The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) filed suit Monday to compel the Central Intelligence Agency to disclose the amount of the total budget request for intelligence for the coming fiscal year (FY 99).

The bipartisan Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the US Intelligence Community (the "Aspin-Brown Commission") unanimously recommended in 1996 that both the total intelligence budget and the amount requested for the following year should be published annually. Most of the Commission's recommendations were ignored.

"There is no valid reason to keep this information classified," said Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS Project on Government Secrecy and the plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Given the resistance to declassification at the CIA and in Congress, a lawsuit is the only way for the public to gain greater accountability."

The lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A copy of the complaint follows below. FAS is represented in the present lawsuit by Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a non- profit civil liberties advocacy organization (202-994-7060).

The Federation of American Scientists, founded by Manhattan Project scientists after World War II, is a non-profit policy research and advocacy organization concerned with national security policy. The FAS Project on Government Secrecy seeks to reduce unnecessary government secrecy in national security affairs.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFUNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

1. Plaintiff Steven Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists,
seeks disclosure of the amount of the total budget request for intelligence for fiscal year
1999 under the Freedom of Information Act. The CIA has refused to release the amount
despite its admission that there is an urgent public need for the information and despite
the fact that the President has determined that the annual total budget appropriation for
intelligence may be released without harming the national security. The CIA's refusal to make
a decision is itself a violation of the law. Because this information does not meet the standards
for classification, the CIA's refusal to release it is an additional violation of the law.

2. Information is exempt from disclosure under (b)(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act only if it is properly classified pursuant to executive order. President Clinton's
Executive Order 12958 states that information may be classified only if its disclosure
"reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security," sec. 1.2(a)(4).
The Executive Order also provides that "if there is significant doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall not be classified," sec. 1.2(b).

3. As explained by then Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, President
Clinton "is persuaded that disclosure of the annual amount appropriated for intelligence purposes will inform the public and will not, in itself, harm intelligence activities."

4. Despite this admission by the Director himself that there is no basis to classify this information under the Executive Order and thus no basis to withhold it under the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA in 1997 refused to release the total amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997, until plaintiff Aftergood filed suit.

5. In March, 1998, the CIA disclosed the total amount appropriated for fiscal year 1998 only after plaintiff threatened a second lawsuit.

6. The President's statement itself built "on the recommendations made in the Brown Commission Report on the Roles and Capabilities of the Intelligence Community." That group of experts appointed by the President and the Congress to examine this issue found that the requested information does not meet the standards for classification and unanimously recommended that it should be disclosed.

7. The Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence
Community ("Commission") was chartered by statute in 1994 to examine "the efficacy and
appropriateness" of U.S. intelligence policies (Public Law 103-359). It consisted of nine
bipartisan members appointed by the President and eight bipartisan members appointed
by Congress. The Commission was tasked by law, inter alia, to address "to what extent,
if any, should the budget for United States intelligence activities be publicly disclosed."

8. In its final report, the bipartisan Commission unanimously recommended that "at
the beginning of each congressional budget cycle, the President or a designee disclose
the total amount of money appropriated for intelligence activities for the current fiscal year
(to include NFIP, JMIP, and TIARA) and the total amount being requested for the next
fiscal year." (Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence,
recommendation 14-2, page 142, emphasis added.)

9. To date, however, the CIA has failed to disclose "the total amount being
requested" for fiscal year 1999. The CIA's refusal to release this information violates the
Executive Order on classification and the Freedom of Information Act.

12. The Federation of American Scientists is a fifty-two year old research
organization concerned with national security policy. Plaintiff Steven Aftergood is director
of the Federation's Project on Government Secrecy which seeks to reduce unnecessary
government secrecy and to promote public oversight and accountability of government
activities. Last year, a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff led to disclosure of the total amount
appropriated for intelligence in 1997.

13. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency is an agency of the United States
government which has possession of the information requested by plaintiff under the
Freedom of Information Act.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

14. By letter dated January 26, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation
of American Scientists, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, requested a copy of
documents indicating the total budget request for intelligence for fiscal year 1999 from the
CIA.

15. By his letter of 26 January 1998, plaintiff Aftergood further requested "expedited processing" of the request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(6)(E)(i)(I) citing the "compelling need" to inform the public concerning the amount of the pending budget request.

16. By letter dated February 18, 1998, the CIA granted the request for expedited
processing.

17. The Freedom of Information Act requires the agency to determine within 20 working days whether it will comply with requests for information and requires that an "agency shall process as soon as practicable any request for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing." 5 U.S.C. sec. 552a(6)(A) and (E)(iii).

18. Despite the fact that the requested information consists of one number and that the CIA recognized the urgent public need to be informed of this information, and agreed to expedited processing, it did not provide the requested information.